Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 50

Thread: Tolerance of People with Opposing Views or Lifestyles

  1. #1
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,735

    Tolerance of People with Opposing Views or Lifestyles

    There has been a lot in the media regarding Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty and his comments to GQ magazine. I should preface this by saying that I have never watched an episode of DD, but from what I hear, his comments to GQ are not much different than the type of stuff that he says on TV.

    The part that I am curious about is people are staying that what he told GQ is full of hate. When I read what he says, he is a bit graphic and is more staying that he does not understand and then he quotes the bible. (LINK TO GQ Article... may not be work safe depending on where you work) An advocacy group caught wind of this and pushed A&E to ban him from the show saying that it was hate filled.

    There has been some talk about persecution of religion and the right to free speech. Which is only partly true, it is freedom of persecution from the Government that is protected. Not from society. Additionally people are angry at A&E for making a business decision regarding their product (the show is a product). It is their right to do this if they choose. However, they knew this guy’s beliefs before the show started, they knew that it could be controversial, and even though they have ban him from the show, they still went forward with a DD marathon the other day. If they were so worried about the image of the network, then why did they put the show on for 25 hours?

    Personally, I think the whole thing is quite silly because it shows a lack of tolerance by just about everyone involved. People do or say things that we might not agree with all of the time, but how do we treat them? There are people who are calling for a boycott of A&E… which I think is stupid. I someone doesn't like the decisions that a business makes, then don’t do business with them. But to demand others follow is silly. There are people who are thrilled that Phil is not on DD anymore… which I also think is silly. If people don’t want to hear what Phil has to say, odds are they are not going to want to hear what the other people say, or they tuned out a long time ago.

    I think that the divisions that we see in this country is just a reflection of a lack of tolerance of people. I almost wonder if some people will go out of their way to find differences in people so they don’t have to be nice to them. Regardless what you believe, what positions you hold, or ideas that you have, look for common connections with people and build on the good, not the bad.

    What are your thoughts? Do you think that we have become an intolerant society on a quest to spread hate? Or do you think that lines in the sand need to be drawn and if someone doesn't share the same viewpoint, to hell with them?
    Invest in the things today, that provide the returns tomorrow.

  2. #2
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,420
    Has it ever occurred to anyone that the producers of Duck Dynasty chose to "suspend" Phil Robertson as a publicity stunt and as a way to drive up ratings????? People are acting as if A&E is trying to stand on some moral high ground. The network doesn't care what he does if it drives up ratings.

    The American public is so damn clueless.
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  3. #3
    Cyburbian Brocktoon's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Promoting synergies...
    Posts
    3,558
    Living on 20,000 acres and hunting everyday and to blowing up shit on his compound is a lifestyle; being gay is not.

    If he feels being gay is a sin that is mistaken belief but from what he where he clearly mixes fabric, he eats shelfish and pork, and has probably looked lustfully at another woman.

    In my mind making anti-gay slurrs is just as bigoted as jokes on race. The fact he calls being gay a lifestyle on top of his insinuation that homosexualty is a choice. If he would have made slurs about someones race no one would be questioning why is everyone so upset over the article.
    "If you don't like change, you're going to like irrelevance even less" General Eric Shinseki

  4. #4
    Cyburbian dvdneal's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Remote command post at local bar
    Posts
    4,625
    I actually think the DD people and others like them are smart people. They just create a brand for themselves that sells to idiot America. I just refuse to watch or purchase brands that make me feel like the movie Idiocracy if happening.

    As far as tolerating them, I do that, but I think they also need to learn tolerance. If you're going to preach the Bible you must include the part where Jesus says to turn the other cheek and add a dose of forgiveness to it.

    When it comes to the gay rights argument, I think they need to be given their rights. The arguments I here are all religious, which is fine to have your beliefs, but this is a government problem not a church problem.

    I just keep hoping this era of television influencing people to be stupid or red neck will pass and something better will come on.
    I don't pretend to understand Brannigan's Law. I merely enforce it.

  5. #5
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    10,085
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    What are your thoughts? Do you think that we have become an intolerant society on a quest to spread hate? Or do you think that lines in the sand need to be drawn and if someone doesn't share the same viewpoint, to hell with them?
    I have stated mine previously, but it boils down to this:

    What is acceptable speech in society and what is hate speech? At what point does bigotry or opposing viewpoints become more than just someones opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Not everyone is entitled to spew hate speech.

    To me it is the continuation of the fight that has already begun in society to move past the religious zealots who would rather pick and choose portions of the bible to thump than actually love their fellow man. I think our society frowns deeply on this kind of thing, but has difficulty when we silence any voice.

    The people who are supporting Phil the most, are doing it for political or religious gain. Or they are just doing it because they are idiots (I'm looking at you Palin...)
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  6. #6
    Cyburbian otterpop's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Down by Dun Ringill
    Posts
    6,040
    Blog entries
    6
    A&E ran a "Duck Dynasty" marathon last week. Back-to-back episodes several nights a week. Phil Robertson sits in the penalty box until this whole thing blows over. No one is killing the golden goose. Fans of the show will not stop watching. Those who don't watch the show will continue to not watch. Nothing has changed.

    Phil Robertson has issued no mea culpas. Nor should he. He is a Southern-born and bred old fart and a born-again evangelical Christian. No one is less tolerant than a reformed sinner. I read he is worth about $15 million. I think he will be alright.

    A person is free to believe or say what he or she wants. And be prepared to suffer the consequences of their speech or action. As long as you do not harm anyone (and hearing something you don't like or agree with isn't "harm"), then you are free to live with your choices.

    I grew up in Louisiana. My father's family hails from north Louisiana, just like the Robertsons. What Robertson said about gays and race isn't a shock to me. I have older relatives and cousins who've said the same or worse.

    It is hard to explain why I've developed a thicker skin about this sort of crap. Your grandma or your uncle or aunt, or cousin may say something that you find repugnant, but you just have to let it slide. You aren't going to change their way of thinking and I don't want to be the one who ruined Thanksgiving by picking a fight with an 80-year-old bigot. They're your family and you gotta get along with them. Sure, they say some stupid crap every so often, but most of the time they are nice people who give your presents, tell you funny stories and make you a pecan pie. They're family!
    "I am very good at reading women, but I get into trouble for using the Braille method."

    ~ Otterpop ~

  7. #7
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,420
    My wife's uncle is from Baton Rouge and he dropped the "N-word" in a conversation with me yesterday.

    I just pretended I didn't hear it, because it was a battle that could not be won.
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  8. #8
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,593
    He equates being gay with murder and other actual sins. He also has previously called homosexuals evil and destroying America. How is that not hateful? And it clearly is a way for him and others like him to justify treating gay people as though they were murderers. This is the type of mindset that leads to awful treatment and worse.

    Then the guy says black Americans were better off during the Jim Crow era, which he apparently grew up in. Suggesting that an entire race of Americans were better off and happier while they were being denied basic rights, and beaten and murdered for just seeking those rights, is pretty nasty stuff.

    And then large swaths of the country pretend not only that those sentiments are not racist and biggoted and homophobic, but they stand up and support those sentiments? It just exposes what so many people pretend doesn't exist. That of course being that large parts of rural America are racist, homophobic wastelands of ignorance and hate. Then it further exposes that certain politicians and media outlets exist simply to feed off of and fuel that hate and ignorance. All of the GOP frontrunners for 2016 except Christie have spoken in support of the guy and his beliefs. To me that is the biggest outrage about this event. The modern GOP has spoken, and let the world know that they stand for bigotry. People are being quite vocal right now that this guy is a real American and these are "real American values". Large segments of the country finally came out of the closet.

    As to his rights to speech, he has every right to say those things. He also has every right to go around telling overweight people that gluttony is a sin and they are therfore evil (which coincidentally has more biblical backing) but obviously he knows better. People say things when they think they can get away with it and that society will condone it. It's incumbent upon society to speak up that racism and homophobia is behavior that society rejects. Unfortunately we are not there yet -since obviously large parts of our society don't reject that behavior.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  9. #9
    Cyburbian rcgplanner's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Back in SE Texas
    Posts
    1,680
    Some on the DD bandwagon act all appalled that A&E suspended Phil Robinson claiming his 1st Amendment right. The fact is that the 1st Amendment only protects an individual from the government suppressing speech, not an employer, etc. Just like I can't expect to keep my job if I say things that make my employer bad, Phil Robinson can't say things that make his employer, A&E look bad. All that being said I tend to agree with btrage that this is a way to get some publicity while still acting "sensitive" to those offended.

    I am a bit annoyed that is anti-gay comments got so much press, his racial comments were much more repugnant and tone-deaf to me. The fact is that the Jim Crow era was not a good time to be African-American in the US, especially the south, and suggesting anything different is to be woefully ignorant of American history. His anti-gay comments are the same I hear from many fundamentalist Christian's in believing that homosexuality is a sin, just like a whole laundry list of other things.

  10. #10
    Cyburbian otterpop's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Down by Dun Ringill
    Posts
    6,040
    Blog entries
    6
    Quote Originally posted by imaplanner View post
    He equates being gay with murder and other actual sins. He also has previously called homosexuals evil and destroying America. How is that not hateful? And it clearly is a way for him and others like him to justify treating gay people as though they were murderers. This is the type of mindset that leads to awful treatment and worse.

    Then the guy says black Americans were better off during the Jim Crow era, which he apparently grew up in. Suggesting that an entire race of Americans were better off and happier while they were being denied basic rights, and beaten and murdered for just seeking those rights, is pretty nasty stuff.
    I certainly do not agree with or defend Robertson's comments, but this degree of hyperbole distorts what he actually said.
    "I am very good at reading women, but I get into trouble for using the Braille method."

    ~ Otterpop ~

  11. #11
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,471
    Quote Originally posted by btrage View post
    Has it ever occurred to anyone that the producers of Duck Dynasty chose to "suspend" Phil Robertson as a publicity stunt and as a way to drive up ratings????? People are acting as if A&E is trying to stand on some moral high ground. The network doesn't care what he does if it drives up ratings.

    The American public is so damn clueless.
    I think we are seeing a new type of advertising campaign, born out of necessity of a shrinking demographic. Chick fil-a, war on x-mas and now this.

    These people were all yuppies before, now this.

    It is a put-on. Grifting the constituency. A long con.
    -------
    Give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob the world.

  12. #12
    Cyburbian Plus Whose Yur Planner's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dixie
    Posts
    6,059
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    There has been a lot in the media regarding Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty and his comments to GQ magazine. I should preface this by saying that I have never watched an episode of DD, but from what I hear, his comments to GQ are not much different than the type of stuff that he says on TV.

    The part that I am curious about is people are staying that what he told GQ is full of hate. When I read what he says, he is a bit graphic and is more staying that he does not understand and then he quotes the bible. (LINK TO GQ Article... may not be work safe depending on where you work) An advocacy group caught wind of this and pushed A&E to ban him from the show saying that it was hate filled.

    There has been some talk about persecution of religion and the right to free speech. Which is only partly true, it is freedom of persecution from the Government that is protected. Not from society. Additionally people are angry at A&E for making a business decision regarding their product (the show is a product). It is their right to do this if they choose. However, they knew this guy’s beliefs before the show started, they knew that it could be controversial, and even though they have ban him from the show, they still went forward with a DD marathon the other day. If they were so worried about the image of the network, then why did they put the show on for 25 hours?

    Personally, I think the whole thing is quite silly because it shows a lack of tolerance by just about everyone involved. People do or say things that we might not agree with all of the time, but how do we treat them? There are people who are calling for a boycott of A&E… which I think is stupid. I someone doesn't like the decisions that a business makes, then don’t do business with them. But to demand others follow is silly. There are people who are thrilled that Phil is not on DD anymore… which I also think is silly. If people don’t want to hear what Phil has to say, odds are they are not going to want to hear what the other people say, or they tuned out a long time ago.

    I think that the divisions that we see in this country is just a reflection of a lack of tolerance of people. I almost wonder if some people will go out of their way to find differences in people so they don’t have to be nice to them. Regardless what you believe, what positions you hold, or ideas that you have, look for common connections with people and build on the good, not the bad.

    What are your thoughts? Do you think that we have become an intolerant society on a quest to spread hate? Or do you think that lines in the sand need to be drawn and if someone doesn't share the same viewpoint, to hell with them?
    I believe that we are a society that people are ginning up division and conflict for money or other reasons. We are also paying the price for what has happened in the past. The 60's and onward may have started to help redress the past. It also created culture that brings all this up and plays on it for profit or power.
    When did I go from Luke Skywalker to Obi-Wan Kenobi?

  13. #13
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,593
    Quote Originally posted by otterpop View post
    I certainly do not agree with or defend Robertson's comments, but this degree of hyperbole distorts what he actually said.
    In response to a question about the south before the civil rights act he said blacks were happier than they are now and were not mistreated.

    Regarding homosexuals he said they are faithless, insolent, god haters who do evil.

    In my opinion I'm not being hyperbolic or distorting what he said.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  14. #14
    moderator in moderation Suburb Repairman's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    at the neighboring pub
    Posts
    5,344
    People trying to defend Robertson are using a woefully mutated concept of what tolerance is. By many of their definitions of tolerance, we would have never fought a Civil War and simply tolerated one another's views like had been the case for a hundred years. N***** would still be a part of our regular vocabulary. It would still be socially acceptable to call someone a f****t. It would be OK to compare African Americans to monkeys. The LDS Church still wouldn't allow blacks to participate in the priesthood and temple ceremonies. It wasn't even that long ago that people refused to vote for a Catholic out of fear that he would be a puppet leader to the Vatican.

    I view this whole thing through a very cynical lens. This is 100% about publicity and attracting attention.

    For Phil Robertson: I think this was a calculated business move to score speaking gigs & increased appearance fees to coincide with the 2014 election cycle, regardless of what he actually believes or thinks. Phil Robertson is not an uneducated hillbilly. In fact he is quite the opposite and holds a masters degree in education. And he is savvy enough to turn his obcession with bird hunting into a multimillion dollar business AND jump on the even more lucrative reality show bandwagon... and get their brand into damn near every retailer except for maybe . And then they drive their armored truck full of money to the bank.

    For A&E: Come on... let's not pretend like this network is all high & mighty and the pinnacle of the war against anything construed as hate speech. They are the same station that brought you Mad Men, which features and to some degree glamorizes sexism, racism, antisemitism and homophobia. Albeit that show is a period piece intended to reflect that era, but many question if the popularity of the show was due in some part to a nostalgia for a time when it was acceptable to be sexist, racist and the rest. Sure, Mad Men depicted the main male characters as immoral bastards, but I still think its line of political incorrectness served to connect with a good portion of the show's audience. I don't think A&E really cares about what Robertson said. This is about ratings and money to them. This whole event has everyone, liberal-to-conservative, talking about the show without costing them a dime. People are tuning in to see for themselves that never watched the show. Those that did watch it are rallying around it with the kind of fervor reserved for cult leaders. They suspend Phil for a while to milk that aspect of the ratings, then bring him back into the fold later when things either die down or as a "redemption" angle. And then they drive their armored truck full of money to the bank.

    It ends the same way for both parties, with the American public buying into it hook, line & duck call. ColoGI's reference to the "long con" is spot on.

    I'll play along for this thread though...

    Is Phil Robertson actually racist? I kind of doubt it--he has a biracial grandson that he seems to have a good relationship with. However, his response does sound like a disgusting longing for the Jim Crow Era and seemed to reference the concept of the welfare queen. I'm very hesitant to call someone a racist unless I've got a stack of evidence or personal experience with them. For now he gets the benefit of the doubt from me and I'll label him willfully ignorant & tone deaf. He is willfully ignorant of what was going on during that time when he was in the fields with African Americans--he didn't want to acknowledge what was going on and he probably counted many African Americans as friends without them ever really discussing racial struggles. In the poor, rural south, your average African American did not run around talking about how the white man was keeping them down to other white people--that was a good way to find yourself on the receiving end of racial violence. Of course Robertson didn't hear them complain. Many white people during that time were like that--they chose not to see the ugly parts, and that resulted in a poor understanding of the civil rights movement. They didn't see the separate entrances. They didn't see the separate balcony above them at the movie theater. They chose not to see that separate but supposedly equal dining room on the other side of the kitchen. They assumed the black school was just as good as the white school because they chose not to learn about the issues. They weren't actively racist, but they weren't joining the fight for civil rights either ("it doesn't affect me, so why should I care?" or "if I speak up, what am I risking?"). The level of segregation and discimination varied wildly from community to community and year to year during that time, especially in small farming/hunting communities like where he grew up, which were often homogenous in that everyone regardless of race was piss poor. As a result, he might not have personally observed the overt racism of the time. This clearly doesn't make is comments OK, but it does provide a perspective on where he could be coming from.

    Is Phil Robertson a homophobe? I don't know that his comments reach the point of being extreme irrational aversion that goes with a phobia, but I do think he subscribes to a form of "Biblical Gay Bashing" and the old false teaching of "hate the sin, love the sinner" that is so often used as an excuse for what I call "friendly hate speech." A friend of mine is very religious & conservative. I like what he had to say about Robertson. He said one of his biggest religious struggles is trying to reconcile what he thinks the Bible says about homosexuality (and is said by pastors) with gay people he knows and is friends with that are good & decent people. He said he wished Robertson would've taken the question as an opportunity to discuss that struggle so many Christians have with how they read and are taught the Bible regarding homosexuality against actual experiences and friendships developed with homosexuals.

    It wouldn't have compromised Robertson's beliefs, and would have hopefully created some productive dialogue within churches beyond the "hate the sin, love the sinner" bullshit that is so patently offensive to someone that believes homosexuality is a born trait (you've just called a major part of his/her identity a "sin," like some sort of demon to cast out), and a belief that is gaining more and more scientific validity. Or Robertson could've just simply said that his experience in the church and reading scripture has led him to believe homosexuality is a sin and simply left it at that. I don't think anyone would've pushed back on such a statement and it wouldn't have been a blip on the radar. His mistake calculated publicity move that created such a shitstorm was badly paraphrasing scripture and going into a commentary on the relative appeal of various sexual organs. It was intolerable and, frankly, disgusting in how he completely ignored the relationship aspect of sex as an expression of love in addition to desire and instead characterized it like some sort of exclusive phsical thing. Given that, I feel very sorry for his wife.

    "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

    - Herman Göring at the Nuremburg trials (thoughts on democracy)

  15. #15
    Cyburbian otterpop's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Down by Dun Ringill
    Posts
    6,040
    Blog entries
    6
    Quote Originally posted by imaplanner View post
    In response to a question about the south before the civil rights act he said blacks were happier than they are now and were not mistreated.

    Regarding homosexuals he said they are faithless, insolent, god haters who do evil.

    In my opinion I'm not being hyperbolic or distorting what he said.
    Did he compare treating gays like murderers? He did not.

    Did he advocated denying blacks civil rights, beating them or murdering them? He did not.

    Hyperbole. In my opinion.

    It is fair to judge a man on what he says. It is not fair to judge him for the words you put in his mouth or say are in his mind.

    None of us know what good or bad resides in a person's heart or mind. Everyone of us is unique and a mystery to all others. We all carry within us thoughts we keep secret, or perhaps just unexpressed. We get into trouble when we let out some of the things we do think.

    Robertson did say that he worked side by side with the blacks in the fields. Who among us has ever been dirt-poor and had to chop cotton? He was. He did not profess to be better than blacks. He called himself "white trash." As a child and young man he was of a social status not much higher than a black man, though he certainly benefited from the advantages of being a white man in the Deep South.

    He said he never heard blacks bemoan their fate in the Deep South in the 1960s. Which may well be a fact. Having grown up in the Deep South in the 1960s and 1970s, I can pretty much say the same. Most black people didn't voice their feelings of injustice and persecution to the white people around them. I am sure they expressed those feelings a-plenty in their homes, gatherings and in church. But to the white people around them - the people whose houses they cleaned, whose fields they toiled in, and whose kitchens they cooked in, those blacks said "yessir" and "yes ma'am," did their work and did not raise a fuss. Sorrowful fact of life of those days.

    I recall going with my father to see my great aunt's doctor in Mansfield, LA. We went into the waiting room and it was full of black women who were surprised to see two white men. My dad took me out and down the hall to the next room, which was full of white women. It was the late 1970s. Segregated waiting rooms. Did those black women want to sit together with the white women, and vice versa? I do not know.
    "I am very good at reading women, but I get into trouble for using the Braille method."

    ~ Otterpop ~

  16. #16
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,593
    Quote Originally posted by otterpop View post
    Did he compare treating gays like murderers? He did not.

    Did he advocated denying blacks civil rights, beating them or murdering them? He did not.

    Hyperbole. In my opinion.

    It is fair to judge a man on what he says. It is not fair to judge him for the words you put in his mouth or say are in his mind.

    None of us know what good or bad resides in a person's heart or mind. Everyone of us is unique and a mystery to all others. We all carry within us thoughts we keep secret, or perhaps just unexpressed. We get into trouble when we let out some of the things we do think.

    Robertson did say that he worked side by side with the blacks in the fields. Who among us has ever been dirt-poor and had to chop cotton? He was. He did not profess to be better than blacks. He called himself "white trash." As a child and young man he was of a social status not much higher than a black man, though he certainly benefited from the advantages of being a white man in the Deep South.

    He said he never heard blacks bemoan their fate in the Deep South in the 1960s. Which may well be a fact. Having grown up in the Deep South in the 1960s and 1970s, I can pretty much say the same. Most black people didn't voice their feelings of injustice and persecution to the white people around them. I am sure they expressed those feelings a-plenty in their homes, gatherings and in church. But to the white people around them - the people whose houses they cleaned, whose fields they toiled in, and whose kitchens they cooked in, those blacks said "yessir" and "yes ma'am," did their work and did not raise a fuss. Sorrowful fact of life of those days.

    I recall going with my father to see my great aunt's doctor in Mansfield, LA. We went into the waiting room and it was full of black women who were surprised to see two white men. My dad took me out and down the hall to the next room, which was full of white women. It was the late 1970s. Segregated waiting rooms. Did those black women want to sit together with the white women, and vice versa? I do not know.
    Fair points. In my view racism is not limited to advocating unfair treatment and homophobia is not limited to beating up gay people. I think my view of what constitutes racism and homophobia is maybe a little different. I'll try to explain my perspective on this a little more.

    On homophobia, Robertson doesn't say he advocates treating gays like murderers no. But he compares the two (or maybe it was some other sins instead of murder now that I revisited his more recent comments) which tells us that he believes they are similar sins. This is what people do to justify mistreatment of groups. If a gay person is like a swindler, or a murderer or what not, then it is justified to treat them the same. That's how prejudice works. If I believe a person is evil I'm damn sure going to treat them differently.

    On black Americans pre civil right era, considering them better off and happier when they couldn't vote and were often beaten and murdered for seeking as such, I see that statement as a racist statement. Growing up in that era it would have been improbable that he was not aware that blacks could not vote or do other things and that they were frequently beaten and harassed if they spoke up about their mistreatment. In his home state of Louisiana schools were segregated until 1960 meaning he would have had first hand knowledge of the practice. Restaurants in Louisiana routinely refused to serve blacks throughout the 60's. He says he never witnessed mistreatment - which tells me that he doesn't consider that to be mistreatment. In my view the willful whitewashing of that era and the sentiment that as a group blacks were happier during that era is a racist view. It's along the same lines of the welfare and entitlement making minorities lazy argument that high profile people routinely make, and the argument he seemed to be heading towards when he mentions blacks being happy and god fearing pre-enitlement. That is why I view his comments as racist.

    Maybe it is hyperbole and putting things in his heart that are not there, but I honestly don't think so.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  17. #17
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,762
    Blog entries
    1
    "I believe diversity is an old, old wooden ship."

    ---

    In all seriousness though, I think it's sad that we live in a society, where on one-side we have people who are extremely offended by everything and assume every action or word is intended to hurt, and on the other side we still have a small number of people who actually are intent on hurting other people. I'd like to think that most people do not intend ill will, and I'd also like to think that most people don't actually believe that someone is racist or bigoted every time they make an edgy remark or joke.

    I look forward to the days when we can all occasionally laugh about our differences without ill-will being so readily assumed on the part of anyone.
    "Life's a journey, not a destination"
    -Steven Tyler

  18. #18
    Cyburbian Linda_D's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Jamestown, New York
    Posts
    1,698
    Quote Originally posted by imaplanner View post
    He equates being gay with murder and other actual sins. He also has previously called homosexuals evil and destroying America. How is that not hateful? And it clearly is a way for him and others like him to justify treating gay people as though they were murderers. This is the type of mindset that leads to awful treatment and worse.

    Then the guy says black Americans were better off during the Jim Crow era, which he apparently grew up in. Suggesting that an entire race of Americans were better off and happier while they were being denied basic rights, and beaten and murdered for just seeking those rights, is pretty nasty stuff.

    And then large swaths of the country pretend not only that those sentiments are not racist and biggoted and homophobic, but they stand up and support those sentiments? It just exposes what so many people pretend doesn't exist. That of course being that large parts of rural America are racist, homophobic wastelands of ignorance and hate. Then it further exposes that certain politicians and media outlets exist simply to feed off of and fuel that hate and ignorance. All of the GOP frontrunners for 2016 except Christie have spoken in support of the guy and his beliefs. To me that is the biggest outrage about this event. The modern GOP has spoken, and let the world know that they stand for bigotry. People are being quite vocal right now that this guy is a real American and these are "real American values". Large segments of the country finally came out of the closet.

    As to his rights to speech, he has every right to say those things. He also has every right to go around telling overweight people that gluttony is a sin and they are therfore evil (which coincidentally has more biblical backing) but obviously he knows better. People say things when they think they can get away with it and that society will condone it. It's incumbent upon society to speak up that racism and homophobia is behavior that society rejects. Unfortunately we are not there yet -since obviously large parts of our society don't reject that behavior.
    My only disagreement with this post is that it's not just rural America that is "racist, homophobic wastelands of ignorance and hate". You find these same attitudes in cities and suburbs as well although they are usually expressed less openly.
    If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy, January 20, 1961

  19. #19
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,593
    Quote Originally posted by illinoisplanner View post
    "I believe diversity is an old, old wooden ship."

    ---

    In all seriousness though, I think it's sad that we live in a society, where on one-side we have people who are extremely offended by everything and assume every action or word is intended to hurt, and on the other side we still have a small number of people who actually are intent on hurting other people. I'd like to think that most people do not intend ill will, and I'd also like to think that most people don't actually believe that someone is racist or bigoted every time they make an edgy remark or joke.

    I look forward to the days when we can all occasionally laugh about our differences without ill-will being so readily assumed on the part of anyone.
    I think alot of this has to do with different ideas about what racism is. I'm pretty sure most people don't have ill will to races other than their own. I think alot of people think that as long as someone is intent on hurting or actively treating someone different they can't be racist. But many others believe that assigning characteristics to entire races, or even ignoring or downplaying actual racism is itself racist.

    A great example is Bill O Reilly (and others but him most notably) said after Obama's re-election that America is now a nation of minorities and they don't value hard work and only want free things. A heck of a lot of people defended that statement as in no way racist. And I'm sure they believe it wasn't racism - after all he wasn't advocating treating them any differently, he just said they don't value hard work and just want free things. But IMO that was absolutely racism. And that is exactly the type of racism that is still such a problem in America. People believe things about entire races and those beliefs often guide political decisions. No outright harm is intended but its still racism and/or bigotry IMO.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  20. #20
    Super Moderator kjel's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Wishing I were in Asia somewhere!
    Posts
    9,844
    Blog entries
    5
    Quote Originally posted by imaplanner View post
    I think alot of this has to do with different ideas about what racism is. I'm pretty sure most people don't have ill will to races other than their own. I think alot of people think that as long as someone is intent on hurting or actively treating someone different they can't be racist. But many others believe that assigning characteristics to entire races, or even ignoring or downplaying actual racism is itself racist.

    A great example is Bill O Reilly (and others but him most notably) said after Obama's re-election that America is now a nation of minorities and they don't value hard work and only want free things. A heck of a lot of people defended that statement as in no way racist. And I'm sure they believe it wasn't racism - after all he wasn't advocating treating them any differently, he just said they don't value hard work and just want free things. But IMO that was absolutely racism. And that is exactly the type of racism that is still such a problem in America. People believe things about entire races and those beliefs often guide political decisions. No outright harm is intended but its still racism and/or bigotry IMO.
    ^^ This. I've lived in very different parts of the country and racism is present in all of them, but how it is expressed and condoned differs. As others have said, you have the right to say whatever you wish but that does not mean that it is correct or exempt from criticism. Do I care a whit about A & E putting Phil Robertson in the penalty box? No. If I don't like it, I don't watch it. ABC Family airs Pat Robertson every night and I turn it to another channel because he's a crackpot.

    Charles Blow, NYT columnist published an excellent op-ed this past week on the brouhaha that is on point. He grew up not far from where the Robertsons live in Louisiana. For me, the most profound thing he said in the column was: "You don’t have to operate with a malicious spirit to do tremendous harm. Insensitivity and ignorance are sufficient. In fact, intolerance that is disarming is the most dangerous kind. It can masquerade as morality."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/op...-quackery.html
    "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" Jeremiah 22:16

  21. #21
    Cyburbian Plus
    Registered
    May 2008
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,889
    [QUOTE=rcgplanner;705831]. . . ...I tend to agree with btrage that this is a way to get some publicity while still acting "sensitive" to those offended. . . .[/QUOTE]+2


    People:

    The DDdude is not important enough for long posts on a Cyburbia thread!!

    Spend your time, instead, enjoying this beautiful holiday season.

  22. #22
    Cyburbian rcgplanner's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Back in SE Texas
    Posts
    1,680
    Quote Originally posted by Seana View post


    People:

    The DDdude is not important enough for long posts on a Cyburbia thread!!

    Spend your time, instead, enjoying this beautiful holiday season.[/SIZE][/FONT]
    Off-topic:
    Cheers Seana! I hope you are having a nice holiday season!

  23. #23
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,735
    The intent of this thread was a bit different, but it seems to have morphed into several directions that are still important. To me, and I could be wrong, but I think that the problem is larger than just the DD situation.

    I agree that racism is still abundant in America but it is in different ways than it was during the Civil Right's movement. For example, in Flint a hospital granted a request from a parent who did not want any black nurses to care for his child. It is not uncommon to receive these requests, but it is rare that a hospital would grant the request. She is suing the hospital. (LINK) Avoidance based on skin color is a form of racism. For me, that is racism because a person made a choice based on the color of one's skin and not their ability. I have said this before, but I will say it again... people who did not vote for Obama because he is black and just as raciest as people who did vote for Obama because he is black.

    As for tolerance, an extremely conservative friend of mine is truly homophobic, which is an actual fear of gay people. Every time he comes over, he comments how much he loves the houses in my neighborhood, but he can't live their because he is in fear of what his kids might see from the several gay couples that live in the area. I keep trying to explain to him that even if he does not approve of their lifestyle, they are just like anyone else, some good, some bad, but that he should avoid them. However, I do think it is possible for someone to not support homosexual actions without being homophobic. It does not mean that their opposition is correct, but I don't think it is hate.
    Invest in the things today, that provide the returns tomorrow.

  24. #24
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,420
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    The intent of this thread was a bit different, but it seems to have morphed into several directions that are still important. To me, and I could be wrong, but I think that the problem is larger than just the DD situation.

    I agree that racism is still abundant in America but it is in different ways than it was during the Civil Right's movement. For example, in Flint a hospital granted a request from a parent who did not want any black nurses to care for his child. It is not uncommon to receive these requests, but it is rare that a hospital would grant the request. She is suing the hospital. (LINK) Avoidance based on skin color is a form of racism. For me, that is racism because a person made a choice based on the color of one's skin and not their ability. I have said this before, but I will say it again... people who did not vote for Obama because he is black and just as raciest as people who did vote for Obama because he is black.

    As for tolerance, an extremely conservative friend of mine is truly homophobic, which is an actual fear of gay people. Every time he comes over, he comments how much he loves the houses in my neighborhood, but he can't live their because he is in fear of what his kids might see from the several gay couples that live in the area. I keep trying to explain to him that even if he does not approve of their lifestyle, they are just like anyone else, some good, some bad, but that he should avoid them. However, I do think it is possible for someone to not support homosexual actions without being homophobic. It does not mean that their opposition is correct, but I don't think it is hate.
    Herein lies the rub, and really gets to the crux of the issue. Being homosexual is not a "lifestyle". People don't choose to be homosexual. Those that refer to it as a lifestyle only further demean homosexuals, in that it is a choice about their life, when it is not.
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  25. #25
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,735
    Quote Originally posted by btrage View post
    Herein lies the rub, and really gets to the crux of the issue. Being homosexual is not a "lifestyle". People don't choose to be homosexual. Those that refer to it as a lifestyle only further demean homosexuals, in that it is a choice about their life, when it is not.
    I understand what you are saying and I agree... but can you think of a better name for it than lifestyle? I thought about it for a while and that is the best that I could come up with.
    Invest in the things today, that provide the returns tomorrow.

+ Reply to thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 48
    Last post: 02 Jun 2013, 3:43 PM
  2. Replies: 25
    Last post: 13 Mar 2010, 2:21 PM
  3. Local Views
    Cities and Places
    Replies: 8
    Last post: 02 Dec 2002, 5:58 PM
  4. Replies: 19
    Last post: 29 Apr 2002, 4:38 PM